The following is the text of the letter sent by Francis Cardinal Arinze to Bishop William Skylstad, president of the USCCB, concerning the liturgical change in America such that extraordinary ministers will no longer be permitted to purify the vessels used at Mass.
CONGREGATIO CULTO DIVINO ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM
Prot. n. 468/05/L
Rome, 12 October 2006
Your Excellency,
I refer to your letters of 9 March 2005 and 7 March 2006, in which, in the name of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, you requested a renewal of the indult for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to purify the sacred vessels after Mass, where there are not enough priests or deacons to purify a large number of chalices that might be used at Mass.
I have put the whole matter before the Holy Father in an audience which he granted me on 9 June 2006, and received instructions to reply as follows:
1. There is no doubt that "the sign of Communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 240; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).
2. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.
3. Catechesis of the people is important regarding the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ is fully present under each of the species. Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace (cf. Denzinger-Schônmetzer, no. 1729; General Instruction of the Roman Missal, nos. 11, 282). "For pastoral reasons", therefore, "this manner of receiving Communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).
4. Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church.
5. This letter is therefore a request to the members of the Bishops’ Conference of the United Status of America to prepare the necessary explanations and catechetical materials for your clergy and people so that henceforth the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 279, as found in the editio typicatia of the Roman Missal, will be observed throughout its territories.
With the expression of my esteem and fraternal greetings, I remain, Your Excellency,
Devotedly yours in Christ,
+Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect
Monsignor Mario Marini
Under-Secretary
YAAAAAAAAYYYY !
God bless Cardinal Arinze!
Now, about John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi receiving Holy Communion…
I have the solution: BYOW along with a box of Wheat Thins to include a disposable/recyclable cup and saucer to Sunday Mass. It would make Mass a lot shorter and eliminate the need for EMs. Then take your bottle of consecrated wine and wafers/crackers home and go to Sunday Mass via EWTN for the next six months. The necessary downsizing of the priesthood continues as technology marches on!!
OK, lets hear it from the Canon Law pros!!! and the bashers of the Realist!!
Realist, how is your comment possibly Christian?
I was very interested to see what the result of this whole matter would be this past Sunday, specifically to see whether there would be a diminution of EMs present. Nothing changed inre the number of EMs but the priest who celebrated the Mass personally purified all the vessels. This leads to the old saw that once expectation is created it is exceedingly difficult to remove it’s source. The priest found it much easier to purify as many vessels as need be rather than tell even one of the EMs that their service is no longer required. My gut feeling is that nothing much will change inre the number of EMs in the parishes that offer Our Lord under both species. The real sorrow, to my mind, is the number of communicants that pass the Precious Blood without drinking. There was a time when offering Our Lord under both species was a great honor and privilege but now it has been trivialized to the point of dishonoring God.
Now we need to work on the dress code for those EMs. If they are in their gym clothes, I wish the preist would ask them to take a seat.
The priest shortage, I believe, is bottoming out. We will see increased vocations to the priesthood as B16 and subsequent popes continue “housecleaning” and we begin to recover from silly post-VII experimentation. These new priests will be more orthodox and committed to teaching the real faith, not some fluffy substitute, which will encourage even MORE vocations.
One wonders, Realist, when reading your post, whether you ever care to hug your grandchildren, or whether you prefer to watch them on a TV monitor from the next room. Your suggestion about going to Mass via television makes me wonder whether this technique could not be applied to marital relations… I mean, why bother with all that tedious (and unsanitary!) cuddling and caressing, etc…?
Heck, why even bother living together? Just keep the same bachelor pad you had after college and exchange marriage vows over the internet. You could marry anyone on the planet, e-mail each other racy mpegs and neither of you would be troubled with the necessity of learning to be tolerant, generous or forgiving. No complaints about leaving your laundry laying around. You would hardly need to mature ever, at all! Children, of course, would be out of the question… just get a dog… maybe one of those electronic ones that you would never need to feed or clean up after.
Who needs all these sentimental attachments, after all? O brave new world, that has such people in it!
Bernie (“Realist”),
Is your life so devoid of meaning that you have nothing better to do than read about the historical basis for a god you don’t believe in and comment on the religious practices of a community whose beliefs you don’t share?
If you so desperately need to free yourself from the cultural mores and norms of your family of childhood or whatever damage that they caused in you, I suggest that you work this out with a psychotherapist. You live in a nice neighborhood; I’m sure you can afford a few sessions.
Realist,
I ask you not to insult our Blessed Lord truly present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
It is becoming very clear that your only goal on this blog is to be banned.
No one bashes you like yourself.
That is what happens when you choose to worship the unholy trinity of me, myself and I.
You remain in my prayers.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
It seems that the Diocese of Oragne doesn’t understand the letter, and needs to “discuss” the matter. In the meantime, “no changes will be made regarding the present policy for the distribution of Holy Communion and/or the purification of the sacred vessels.”
GET THE STORY
Crossed posts with most recent posters, which is what happens when my posting gets distracted by the real world.
The real sorrow, to my mind, is the number of communicants that pass the Precious Blood without drinking. There was a time when offering Our Lord under both species was a great honor and privilege but now it has been trivialized to the point of dishonoring God.
Brian,
I’m Not sure how to interpret these two sentences. I routinely pass the Precious Blood without drinking. (Actually, I’ve received the Precious Blood only once, at an installation Mass for a Bishop). Trent taught that you receive all of Jesus in once species. While the “fuller sign” is nice, you can make the argument that the GIRM and other documents suggest that the Chalice should not be offered routinely, but only on special occasions.
Yes, receiving both species was – and *is* – a great honor and privilege. My confusion is over “trivialized”. Do you mean the lack of reverence shown by EMHC’s and/or recipients that dishonors God?
Paragraph 5 gives the wiggle room–it used the word request.
It should, if they actually mean it, say “instructed”
So the disrespectors will say it was a request, and the faithful will be further marginalized.
I can see how the Diocese of Orange has such a problem. How could anyone be expected to understand such a letter? Especially the part about there will be no indult and then the part about you need to follow the GIRM. What could that possibly mean?
Realist, it’s good to see you abiding by Rule 1.
Your post today demonstrates the shortcomings of the view in your previous posts. To not believe in the Resurrected Jesus makes impossible belief in transubstantiation. In that case, one does not need a priest at all, nor the personal presence for the sacraments.
But the Catholic faith teaches that Jesus IS present in the Eucharist and that personal presence is required to receive the sacraments. Television or the internet was never meant to take the place of the personal relationship of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Re Realist
I am new to this website, so do not know the various posters’ viewpoints.
But, when I read the Realist on a ” more convenient , drive by” Holy Communion,
I assumed that he was writing tongue in cheek. I assumed he was lamenting the degradation of respect for and understanding of
the ultimate sacrament and, at the same time, ridiculing those who would find his ironic solution actually quite acceptable. It is truly grievous what we
children of God are capable of vis a vis the Blessed Sacrament.
Unfortunately, hedwig, Realist was not joking.
“Yes, receiving both species was – and *is* – a great honor and privilege. My confusion is over “trivialized”. Do you mean the lack of reverence shown by EMHC’s and/or recipients that dishonors God?”
Yes, Brian, that is exactly what I meant. Thanks for the opportunity to express that.
I have the solution: BYOW along with a box of Wheat Thins to include a disposable/recyclable cup and saucer to Sunday Mass. It would make Mass a lot shorter and eliminate the need for EMs. Then take your bottle of consecrated wine and wafers/crackers home and go to Sunday Mass via EWTN for the next six months. The necessary downsizing of the priesthood continues as technology marches on!!
OK, lets hear it from the Canon Law pros!!! and the bashers of the Realist!!
Look at me!!!
I’m ‘Realist’ and I have no life so I go out trolling websites and bashing J.A. Catholic bloggers because they have something I don’t — a genuine Christian Faith.
Boo hoo! Too bad I only believe that the Bible is nothing but a book of myths, Jesus is only a man — nothing else, and that the true Apostles are the Jesus Seminar folks who I love dearly as my infallible papal authority!
They and I often ride in our time machine DeLoreans going back and forth in time, determining exactly what Jesus did do and say so that we can bring down the myth of Christianity and introduce the world to the ‘convergence’ of all religions until there is none!
Did I forget to mention that I believe that I was god???
Ooopsss!!! I just wet my diapers!!! I need to go change!!! Bye, bye!
Even an ignorant layman like me can understand Cardinal Arinze’s letter. Do members of the hierarchy in Southern California need interpreters? “Not feasible” sounds like an answer in the negative to me.
There should be a rule against responding to trolls. It’s what they live on! I’m sure they’d die off much more readily without any response on the part of those whom they are attempting to tick off.
Of course on this of all days, the ramblings of trolldom are most appropriate. 🙂
There should be a rule against responding to trolls. It’s what they live on! I’m sure they’d die off much more readily without any response on the part of those whom they are attempting to tick off.
Of course on this of all days, the ramblings of trolldom are most appropriate. 🙂
Posted by: Joy Schoenberger | Oct 31, 2006 11:33:10 AM
Ahh…..didn’t you just do that?
Well, Bishop Skystad’s letter must not have made it too far. I’m in a parish in the Bishop’s Diocese about 100 miles south of Spokane and our Extraordinary Ministers cleansed the vessels this week.
I think ignoring mockers such as Realists, and overwrought folks such as the one fellow named John, is simply a matter of charity. As much as they invite ridicule, it is hard to see how that will lead to their salvation.
I think ignoring mockers such as Realists, and overwrought folks such as the one fellow named John, is simply a matter of charity. As much as they invite ridicule, it is hard to see how that will lead to their salvation.
The real sorrow, to my mind, is the number of communicants that pass the Precious Blood without drinking.
First off — why are you watching? Is it your business? I know that sounds kinda harsh. But even if you’re an EMHC or priest, it’s really not your business, you know. Catholics have freedom in these matters, and it’s wrong to pressure them to receive Communion in any way — and that includes the pressure to receive both species. “I don’t want to” is as much reason as any Catholic needs.
Second, there are a lot of people with very good reason not to take Communion under both species. Alcoholics. People who are sick. People with weak immune systems. People with trembling hands or other physical problems who are afraid they’d drop the chalice. The list goes on and on. So it’s rude to assume that someone doesn’t have a good reason, when it’s likely they’d have a reason that would shame you for your premature judgments.
I know curiosity is natural in all of us, but sometimes, it just doesn’t pay to be curious. Especially since the time before and after Communion is supposed to be one of intense and intimate prayer, not intense watching of our neighbors and speculation upon their intimate relationship with Our Lord.
Maureen,
I am sorry that what I wrote made you so inappropriately upset. Perhaps I touched a nerve with you. Since you are not at Mass with me I really do not feel that you are in a position to judge what I am or am not doing and unless you are a mind reader I also do not believe you have any idea as to what I am thinking. Do you routinely speak to people in such an uncharitable way? I certainly hope not! There was nothing in my comments that indicated that I am “judging” anyone at Mass, the way that you are, ironically, judging me without even making the attempt to get a better understanding of my thoughts. The gist of my remarks were to express my opinion that we should return to the previous habit of having Our Lord present for comsumption under both species on rare occasions so that the special honor of that is more fully enjoyed. After all, the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is obtained through the consecrated Host.
Have a good day,
Brian
“I am sorry that what I wrote made you so inappropriately upset. Perhaps I touched a nerve with you.”
Wow. That’s the most un-apologetic apology I have ever seen.
It’s like “I’m sorry you’re such a jerk”.
If you read the entire comment, Tim J., you would know that it wasn’t an apology. I was sorry that Maureen totally misunderstood what I meant and made no attempt to ask me about it. Your description “I am sorry you are such a jerk” says more about you then it does about me.
Actually, Brian, your comments did indicate that you were judging others. I read it the same way. Close your eyes and reflect after receiving the Eucharist, and if you absolutely must examine a conscience, stick with your own.
Jeanette,
If you read it that way then you read it the wrong way. I have already stated what I meant and if, after reading it, you are calling me a liar then you had better examine your own conscience.
“If you read it that way then you read it the wrong way.”
Brian, being that you were widely misinterpreted, is it possible you didn’t communicate it well?
Calling you a liar? When the heck did Jeannette do that? Talk about “read(ing) it the wrong way!”
And “I am sorry you are such a jerk” is exactly how your remark to Maureen came across.
“If you read it that way then you read it the wrong way.”
Brian, being that you were widely misinterpreted, is it possible you didn’t communicate it well?
Tim J.,
After getting these responses I would say that I indeed could have communicated it much better. That is the value of feedback on blogs.
Thanks.
The past 5 months I’ve been receiving Holy Communion visibly pregnant, with two toddlers in tow. For these reasons I always choose to not drink the consecrated wine.
My question is, when you walk by the cup what should you do? mark yourself with the sign of the cross? Or just try to not trip over the people in front of you and walk on by?
Anon:
Don’t worry if you only receive Christ under one species. No need to get scrupulous ;^)
What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on this matter is not that we’re receiving more of Jesus or a more complete reception of the Eucharist if we receive under both species. In fact, if you receive either species, you receive the whole Jesus. You’re not getting more of Jesus if you take two sips of the precious blood than if you only took one sip. You don’t want to just go, “Okay, let me have some more! Let me have some more!” No, in fact, you receive the whole Jesus under both species.
By the way, biblically speaking, this is very sound. In 1 Cor 11:27, St. Paul says, “Whoever eats the bread or drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of profaning the Body and the Blood of the Lord.” Notice that if you do it to either one, you profane both which indicates to us even biblically that our Lord is entirely present under both species. So, ontologically speaking, sacramentally speaking, to receive either species you receive the whole Jesus. However, what the Catechism teaches is that it is a more complete symbol – not that you get more grace or anything like that – but it’s a more complete symbol to receive both species. So, we’re talking merely and purely a symbolic value alone. There is no existential difference between receiving one or receiving both.
I don’t fully understand the reasoning behind the rule in the GIRM regarding who is permitted to purify the sacred vessels.
If an Extraordinary Minister can touch the Eucharist itself, doesn’t it seem a bit inconsistent that he should not be allowed to clean the vessels the Eucharist is contained in?
And even if there is a perfectly consistent rationale for the rule, I wonder if the rationale is strong enough to justify potentially depriving Massgoers of the opportunity to receive Communion under both species, if they so desire.
I understand that receiving Christ’s body alone is entirely sufficient … but if the choice is between allowing people to receive Communion under both species versus only one, what does it benefit the Church to allow only one?
Even here in St. Louis, where our archbishop is pretty good but lets the pastors do what they want, there was a statement that the memo requires “further study.”
Isn’t it also forbidden to pour the Precious Blood into the chalices after the consecration? Yet, this is more common in my area and we don’t hear anything about it.
Yes.
[106.] However, the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the Blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms.
Redemptionis Sacramentum
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
To the anonymous poster above, asking about signs of reverence as one passes the chalice, I think that a simple bow of the head, with or without the Sign of the Cross, is probably sufficient (especially if one has toddlers in tow, and can’t prudently let go of their hands in order to make the Sign of the Cross).
Thank you Mr. Akin for this wonderful post. When we first moved to North Dakota I was happy thinking that we could raise our children in a conservative, God loving, look after your neigbors sort of environment. All those statements rang true–except for most of the parishes in the area. The churches here are still stuck in the 70s with mostly awful music and the heavy over use of extraordinary ministers of the eucharist. There have been times when the parish numbered less than 50 people and there were 3 EMs—mostly jean clad women. One of our priests said that our Bishop encouraged it. When we first moved here, to my surprise and joy, the communion rails were still in place. They were removed 2 years ago. We do however still have our beautiful high alter. We love our Holy Father and I hope he continues the much needed reforms. God Bless all.
So, exactly who will be washing the purificators and any linens that will dry, wrap, or otherwise touch the purified vessels? God forbid any lay people wash, fold, store, or manipulate in any way these materials. When they aren’t pure enough to cleanse the vessels, why should they be allowed anywhere near the clothes that will handle them?
Will our priests, deacons and instituted acolytes actually be doing the parish’s laundry now?